XPost: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers, comp.sys.mac.advocacy, c   
   mp.sys.macintrash   
   XPost: microsoft.windows.crash.crash.crash   
   From: Rick@dot.dot   
      
   In article ,   
    GreyCloud  wrote:   
      
   > Dawg Tail wrote:   
   >   
   > > On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:22:49 GMT, Tim Smith   
   > >  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >>In article   
   > >>, Derek   
   > >>Currie wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >>>Finding the safest computer OS is more important that warz mongering. My   
   > >>>point stands, as does that of this news alert, no matter what mud you have   
   > >>>to sling at mi2g.   
   > >>   
   > >>OK, let's try it this way.  Suppose next year, in response to that Mi2G   
   > >>report, almost everyone switched to OS X.  So, we end up with 98% of the   
   > >>servers running OS X, 1% running Linux, and 1% running Windows.  Question:   
   > >>what would be the result?   
   > >>   
   > >>Answer: OS X would then become the most breached OS, and, according to   
   > >>Mi2G's methodology, the least insecure OS of the three.   
   > >>   
   > >>*That* is why Mi2G's study is meaningless.  Total number of breaches per   
   OS,   
   > >>which is what they report, tells you nothing about the security of the   
   OSes.   
   > >>What you want to know (and what they leave out) is *what* *percentage* of   
   > >>the servers that were running each OS were breached.   
   > >>   
   > >>How many major hosting companies run OS X?  How many run Linux?  If the two   
   > >>OSes had the exact same level of security, Linux would suffer at least an   
   > >>order of magnitude more breaches, simply because there are so many more   
   > >>Linux servers out there.   
   > >>   
   > >>What puzzles me is why I even need to explain this.   
   > >   
   > >   
   > > Go easy on them.   
   >   
   > Them who?   
      
   You know, *that* them.   
   >   
   > > They haven't quite got the grasp of simple, logical   
   > > concepts yet.   
   >   
   > Apparently this has flown over your head by miles.  When are you   
   > wintrolls going to figure it out yet?   
   >   
   > > Someday they might. But for now expect that this simple   
   > > concept will evade them for a while longer.   
   > >   
   >   
   > Them who?   
      
   Sorry, I can't me more specific. *They* might be monitoring this group.   
      
   BTW, *they* are not in anyway affiliated with *them*.   
      
   )   
      
   --   
   Rick...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)